Tehran’s familiar playbook

Editor's note: The following text is a transcript of a podcast story. To listen to the story, click on the arrow beneath the headline above.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s Monday the 2nd of June. So glad to have you along for today’s edition of The World and Everything in It. 

Good morning, I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher.

First up: The cease-fire may be holding in the Middle East—but the peace process is looking increasingly fragile.

REICHARD: Israel is threatening new military action against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran is warning of retaliation if Israel makes good on that threat.

Oil markets jumped yesterday on reports that Tehran could pull back from negotiations and take a harder line on the Strait of Hormuz.

And President Trump is reportedly pressing Iran with a tougher version of a proposed peace framework.

EICHER: To help us now sort out the latest developments, we are joined again by Janatan Sayeh of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

And Janatan, it's great to have you back. Good morning.

JANATAN SAYEH: Good morning to you. It's a pleasure to be back on.

EICHER: Well, help us make sense of the moment. The shooting has slowed, but the diplomacy appears to be getting more complicated. 

How close do you think are we to a genuine settlement, how close are we to another round of escalation? And here is maybe the crux of my question: Is it premature in your view to even be taking the diplomatic route?

SAYEH: You're right to point out that the shooting has slowed down, but it never stopped. So not sure if the term "ceasefire" is even applicable as much as maybe a better term would be de-escalation in this context. 

I would say this is the closest we've ever gotten to a potential deal, which does not mean we're close to one necessarily right now. I think the rhetoric coming from the two sides was relatively more optimistic. 

But ultimately, any negotiation with Tehran follows the same playbook that initially they express their willingness to cooperate on the big picture. They reassure us verbally in every possible way; they are very skilled diplomats. But as soon as it's about details and actually putting something on paper, we all of a sudden see Tehran actually try to backtrack what is ultimately said. 

No necessarily new patterns there, but what stood out is how the president mentioned that even if there's no deal reached, he's okay with the status quo, maintaining the blockade, maintaining the pressure, but again, expresses a lack of willingness to re-engage kinetically. So that just tells you that Washington thinks time is on its side, and Tehran might be thinking the same thing.

EICHER: So who do you think has the genuine leverage here? It's always been believed, I think, from at least from our side of the ocean that it's the U.S. But could it possibly be Iran that has the leverage? What do you think?

SAYEH: The issue here is defining success for the two sides is vastly different. 

Tehran's bar for success is simply survival, being able to see another day, rule its people the way it does brutally, and of course, export terror. And ideally, it would have access to its frozen funds, so it would be further emboldened. 

On the other hand, the bar for victory for President Trump is much, much higher. Of course, he wanted to get a better deal, secure the Strait of Hormuz, and go beyond that and actually achieve peace in the Middle East. And Tehran, knowing that, knowing that the president's desires are more than just a simple MOU, Memorandum of Understanding, which is not even a deal yet, that's why they're trying to ensure that any peace agreement would also include the Lebanese Hezbollah terror group. 

The idea here is that they know Trump wants long-lasting stability in the Middle East, and whatever obstacle they can provide, they will. And now they're tying any deal with Tehran to Israeli attacks in Lebanon. Which is, on paper, it sounds a bit far, but once you understand Tehran's strategy it makes sense for them to be maximizing their demands because they think they have more leverage.

REICHARD: Janatan, we spend a lot of time talking about the Iranian regime, but we don’t want to forget the Iranian people, so help us understand them. How are ordinary Iranians viewing this moment?

SAYEH: So we just saw the Internet be reinstated, at least partially. Of course, the access is not what it used to be. But this was the longest Internet blackout in Iranian history. 

And the first opportunity that ordinary Iranians were given to connect themselves to the outside world was to post footage of the brutal massacres going back like six months now in early January. Tells you really the mindset on the ground is still grieving. But that said, I think a lot of morale was to an extent crushed when they did not hear back from the president who had promised originally that he would call on Iranians to take to the streets. And now we see shift in Washington's policy, trying to actually appease the regime or somehow work with them. That really does not send the right message to the average Iranian. But then again, they're watching the back and forth between Tehran and Washington really closely. 

This is not to say that they've lost all hope, but time continues to be of essence. They're still holding up. And of course, they are the first to pay the price as soon as there's any form of escalation, unfortunately.

REICHARD: Now, you're both Iranian and an American. Do you see the American people as having the kind of resolve it'll take to take down a regime like those in power in Iran?

SAYEH: Without a doubt, and I see so many parallels. When the Iranians were taking to the streets, numerous times when I speak to my American friends or policymakers, they see a lot of similarities between what the Iranians are going through right now and what really gave birth to the nation of America in a sense, that the idea here is simply fighting for freedom. There's not necessarily a radicalized ideology behind it. It's about true sovereignty and it's about fighting for freedom. 

And I would say the ordinary Iranians also see the life in the same way. They see how Americans live their lives, I wholeheartedly think they try to model their future governance more so after an American model as opposed to, let's say, European or like a regional model.

So I think the two sides really, when it comes to the people, they have such a thorough understanding of one another as to whether they have the willpower to endure maybe more economic blockade and maybe higher oil prices. I mean, of course, because ultimately this might be a short-term struggle for something that would be so long-lasting. Once you actually are able to have the transition of power in Tehran, the implication of that would simply go beyond just a simple short-term gas price increase.

EICHER: Janaten Sayeh is with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, he focuses on Iranian domestic affairs and the Islamic Republic’s regional influence. 

Janaten, always enjoy our conversations, thanks so much.

SAYEH: It was a pleasure joining. Thank you for having me.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.